sex discrimination – National Coalition For Men (NCFM)http://ncfm.org
Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:24:41 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.139738415NCFM PR Director Steven Svoboda, Esq. letter to National Post and Slate re horrific circumcision articlehttp://ncfm.org/2013/10/action/ncfm-pr-director-steven-svoboda-esq-letter-to-national-post-and-slate-re-horrific-circumcision-article/
http://ncfm.org/2013/10/action/ncfm-pr-director-steven-svoboda-esq-letter-to-national-post-and-slate-re-horrific-circumcision-article/#commentsThu, 03 Oct 2013 23:08:52 +0000http://ncfm.org/?p=14992NCFM NOTE: On September 22, Mr. Svoboda sent a letter to Canada’s leading newspaper, the National Post,and to Slate, in response to Mark Joseph Stern’s horrific article, “‘Intactivists’ Against Circumcision.” Below is the text of the letter. The letter sent to Slate is virtually identical.

We need to let children reach the age of majority and let them decide whether circumcision is right for them.

________________________

There are facts about circumcision — but you won’t be able to learn any of them from Mark Joseph Stern in his article for the National Post (“‘Intactivists’ Against Circumcision, September 19). Instead you will find an astonishing compilation of outright falsehoods about thousands of dedicated, unpaid volunteers from many walks of life who are working to protect children from an unnecessary and irreversible surgery that many of them grow up to resent.

Far from dismissing science, individuals committed to protecting children include leading scientists, pediatricians, public health researchers, and medical ethicists in countries around the world. Recently a team of 38 European scientists wrote in Pediatrics that the only possible medical justification for circumcision is reducing urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are not only rare for boys, but can be effectively treated with antibiotics—just as they are for girls.

Even the American Academy of Pediatrics—which has been criticized by these same experts for having a pro-circumcision bias—agrees that medicine does not justify routine circumcision. The Royal Dutch Medical Association found in 2010 that the foreskin is “a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role” in sex, concluding that “circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”

In 2011, a paper by Frisch in the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology found that “circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women…” That same year, the Journal of Law and Medicine published a detailed survey of the numerous fatal flaws in the African trials that purported to support male circumcision as a preventive measure against HIV infection. Simply put, empirical data does not support the proposition that circumcision improves child health outcomes.

Far from being the concern of “fringe” activists, circumcision has caught the attention of renowned experts in child welfare and human rights. The Journal of Medical Ethics, the world’s top journal in medical ethics, recently published a special issue on circumcision including several articles by leading scholars who are opposed to the nonconsensual removal of healthy, erogenous tissue from children’s genitals.

“Intactivists” are winning because more and more people are investigating the issue for themselves and are coming to realize that a pre-Enlightenment religious ritual has no business masquerading as medicine in the 21st Century. Countless men are extremely dissatisfied that a part of their body was taken away from them without their consent.

The false information and worst ideas mentioned by Stern are in fact coming from him and, sadly, from one of Canada’s premier newspapers.

NCFM president Harry Crouch is following on the footsteps of NCFM vice-president Marc Angelucci who, in 2007, prevailed in the landmark California Supreme Court “Ladies’ Night” sex discrimination case of Marc Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160. Angelucci ruled that men who were charged more than women to enter a supper club did not have to ask the offending business for equal treatment in order to have standing to file a sex discrimination lawsuit. NCFM’s amicus brief to the California Supreme Court was instrumental in the Angelucci decision.

The latest NCFM-related lawsuit to champion equal rights for men and women and to eradicate archaic and illegal Ladies’ Night promotions, was filed by NCFM president Harry Crouch on New Year’s Eve. Harry filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of himself and all similarly situated men and women against the Four Seasons Hotel Westlake Village (California) for its weekly Girls’ Night Out promotion that treated male and female patrons unequally.

On Girls’ Night Out, held every Wednesday for over a year in the Four Seasons lounge, Four Seasons provided female patrons with free food (appetizers) and 1/2 priced beverages, while denying the free food and discounted beverages to male patrons. Four Seasons provided the free food and discounted beverages to only female patrons based solely on sex, it did not matter how wealthy, how well-fed, or well-hydrated Four Seasons female patrons were in comparison to its male patrons to qualify for the free food and discounted beverages.

Despite the many State of California anti-discrimination statutes, unanimous California Supreme Court opinions, California Attorney General and Department of Fair Employment and Housing actions, and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) regulations that prohibit California businesses from treating patrons unequally based on their sex, and specifically condemn and outlaw Ladies’ Night and Ladies’ Day promotions that treat female and male patrons unequally, defendants brazenly advertised and employed a recurring Girls’ Night Out promotion for over a year that treated female and male unequally based solely on their sex.

Mr. Crouch’s class action includes female patrons as part of the class because, as set forth in the below excerpts from the complaint, Ladies’ Night promotions harm women as well as men:

“Koire also ruled “the Legislature established that arbitrary sex discrimination by business is per se injurious” and “differential pricing based on sex may be generally detrimental to both men and women, because it reinforces harmful stereotypes.” Id. at 33. Among the harmful stereotypes detrimental to the advancement of equal rights for women and men that defendants’ Girls’ Night Out perpetuated include: (1) all women are genetically incapable of earning as much money as men; (2) all women are genetically predisposed to not being able to pay as much as men for the same thing; (3) all women enjoy being subsidized by strange men at hotel bars and restaurants; (4) all adult women enjoy being treated like little girls by not being required to pay the full price that adult men are required to pay for the same goods or services, (5) all women enjoy drinking discounted beverages and eating free food in front of men who paid full price for the same types of drinks or food; (6) all women welcome and enjoy a hotel treating them as little more than sexual bait for the hotel’s male customers; and (7) all women and men are expected to just stand around and take it like sheared sheep when a business charges one sex more than the other sex for the exact same thing.

Defendants’ archaic Girls’ Night Out promotion, apparently implemented to benefit the “little women,” is the hallmark of traditionalistic thinkers who may advise a young woman her best chance for a happy life is to ace her home economics class and learn how to make queso from Velveeta in order to catch a good man. Not only has the California Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of the treatment of women through Ladies’ Night promotions, but the United States Supreme Court has similarly weighed in about “romantic paternalism” directed at women. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 (1973), wherein the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the U.S. military must provide its female members with the same housing and medical benefits as it provides its male members, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote that this is another example of one of those types of traditional sex discrimination that ostensibly appears to benefit women, but “rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage.”

Defendants’ Girls’ Night Out promotion caused discontent, animosity, harm, resentment, or envy among the sexes, and is especially troubling, arbitrary, and invidious at a time when the depressed economy put a higher proportion of men out of work than women. For example, when Harry Crouch attended the Girls’ Night Out in March of 2010, the national unemployment rate for men was higher than it was for women, standing at 10% for men and only 8% for women.

During Girls’ Night Out, Four Seasons would have provided female millionaires such as Nancy Pelosi or Sarah Palin with discounted drinks and free food, but would have denied the same to combat veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Or, multi-millionaire Oprah Winfrey could have traveled from her Montecito, California mansion and have been given deeply discounted drinks and free food on Girls Night Out, while unemployed male construction workers would have had to pay full price for their beverages and be denied the free food. On Girls’ Night Out, a female defense attorney pulling down a six figure annual salary would have received discounted drinks and free food, but a minimum wage male file clerk, working for the same firm and sitting at the same Four Seasons table, would have had to pay full price for the same types of beverages and food.

NCFM member Steve Frye had earlier filed a individual lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, against this same Four Seasons Hotel for its Girls’ Night Out promotion, also alleging sex discrimination for treating male and female patrons unequally. That case is pending.

Sex Discrimination works both ways.

Sex Discrimination is just as harmful to men if not more so than it is to women.

]]>http://ncfm.org/2013/01/activities/ncfm-president-files-a-class-action-sex-discrimination-lawsuit-against-the-los-angeles-fours-seasons-hotel-westlake/feed/3010689The National Organization for Women blasts efforts to include sensible and gender inclusive provisions in legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)http://ncfm.org/2012/06/news/domestic-abuse-violence/the-national-coalition-for-women-blasts-efforts-to-include-sensible-and-gender-inclusive-provisions-in-legislation-to-reauthorize-the-violence-against-women-act/
http://ncfm.org/2012/06/news/domestic-abuse-violence/the-national-coalition-for-women-blasts-efforts-to-include-sensible-and-gender-inclusive-provisions-in-legislation-to-reauthorize-the-violence-against-women-act/#commentsWed, 06 Jun 2012 18:33:40 +0000http://ncfm.org/?p=7852Last week, the National Organization for Women issued a press release titled, Where the Real Shame Lies: Calling Victims of Violence Liars and Their Advocates Crooks. The author, NOW’s President, Terry O’Neal,” was referring to Representative Sandy Adams successful bill to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act (H.R. 4970).

O’Neal’s rant failed to mention that Representative Adams was a victim of serious domestic violence as well as a police officer who saw up close and personal the benefits and problems associated with the VAWA. Like Representative Adams, I too have experienced domestic violence, on both sides of the fence, and, I have professionally worked with well over a thousand perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse. Experience I suspect critics like Ms. O’Neal lack.

O’Neal noted there were over 300 organizations supporting NOW’s favored bill (H.R. 4971). She attempted to minimize Representative Adams by saying, “Adams’ bill did get the support of “one” organization, the National Coalition for Men, which issued a statement saying VAWA must be amended to prevent ‘false accusations.’” And, she attacked Stop Abusive and Violent Environments because SAVE had been diligently working for VAWA reforms to protect people from false accusations.

Interestingly, NCFM did not send out a press release. We faxed a letter to members of Congress. Apparently, one or more legislators opposing Adams’ bill enlisted the aid of various media outlets including the blogosphere, which, one after another, singled out NCFM because we stand up for men, all men. They apparently believe that’s bad or that NCFM is unworthy of voicing informed opinions.

The Violence Against Women Act, on its face, says it applies to only women, and that’s an irrefutable fact. In the broadest sense, men are only served up through programs designed to help men end violence against women. I know of no VAWA sponsored program specifically designed to help women end violence against men; or, even against other women. To reiterate what I have said elsewhere, if anyone says men receive equal treatment under VAWA as it exists today, they are ignorant or lying.

To be clear, as applicable, H.R.4970, the bill we favored, simply substituted the word “victim” or “victims” for the words “woman” or “women.” That change would make VAWA gender inclusive. No one would be excluded.

Even with 300 heavyweight supporters, sponsors of H.R. 4971 could not successfully defend their anti-male legislation. Consider, if sponsors of H.R. 4971 excluded Blacks from their bill instead of “men,” they would have been tarred, feathered, sat on a rail, and jeered out of Washington D.C. People are beginning to realize that discrimination against men, like discrimination against Blacks, is horrifically wrong. Such discrimination is not sustainable, not even through VAWA.

Opponents stooped to attacking a board member of another organization supporting H.R. 4970. There was a the appearance of a conflict of interest. She resigned from the board rather than remain as a detractor. The list of 300 H.R.4971 supporters is comprised of stakeholder organizations that one way or another benefit from VAWA. Each of those organizations has an actual conflict of interest, especially those that reap millions of dollars in VAWA funds annually. I’m sure no one from the 300 organizations sucking from VAWA’s teat resigned because of their glaring conflicts of interest. Tragically, those who favor O’Neal’s rant are surely blind to the hypocrisy of their own politics; or, more likely, they don’t care because they are otherwise ideologically impaired.

O’Neal opines, “The principles underlying H.R. 4970’s rollbacks of existing law seem to be that victims don’t tell the truth, and that the governmental and nonprofit agencies that provide services to victims and hold perpetrators accountable are engaged in self-enrichment.”

It’s not a question of “victims” telling the truth, but it’s a fact that many people claiming to be victims falsely accuse innocent people. No reasonable person can believe that false accusations of domestic violence or sexual assault don’t occur or are not a problem. Those who make false accusations are not victims, they are perpetrators.

Still in the news is the recent release of potential football star Brian Banks who was falsely accused and convicted of rape. Anyone involved in the family court system knows false accusations are like a scourge of dead rat maggots eating away at our judicial system. In fact, Lorna Alksne, once supervising judge of Superior Courts of San Diego Family Court Division, has told me that, “[e]veryone lies in family court,” the court where many or most allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault first surface.

The nationwide problem of women falsely accusing men of rape, domestic violence, child abuse, or even paternity might be quickly solved if legislation like the VAWA motivated prosecutors to start filing perjury charges against false accusers. As of this writing Wanetta Gibson has not been criminally charged, the school district has decided to let her keep the money she scammed, and Mr. Banks has decided not to pursue holding Gibson accountable, thereby rewarding Gibson for her horrific crimes. If Gibson had reasonably feared she could lose her freedom for lying about her consensual sexscapade with Banks, he may not have lost ten years of his life to the criminal justice system, and taxpayers would not have lost the $1.5 million to settle Ms. Gibson’s civil claim against the Long Beach Unified School District.

As I’m writing this, I answered another phone call, one of many, from the mother of a young man with no criminal record, a good work history, good education, high skill level, and bright future who was accused of shoving his girlfriend. He was arrested, spent a night in jail, had to make bail, and his family went into debt $15,000 for an attorney who failed to help him.

There’s still a restraining order preventing him from going to his own home, the home he had before the girlfriend, and preventing him from getting his personal possessions, including his tools from which he makes his living. The accuser may have already destroyed, given away, or sold his personal possessions. If so, she will suffer no consequence other than whatever benefit she got from her contemptible behavior. It’s a “he said, she said.” There is no evidence, none, to support the woman’s accusation, which the young man says is false. Even if he did shove her the resulting consequences are ridiculously disproportionate and an overreaction to the alleged offense, especially since no criminal charges were filed.

If her allegation is false, don’t you think she should be held accountable for her egregious behavior? Isn’t the young man then the victim rather than the perpetrator? Should not he be entitled to benefits under VAWA, and even the Victim Compensation Fund? Shouldn’t she be in jail?

But, what if, as the opposition would like you to believe, people don’t make false accusations. If that’s true, then there can be no harm including language in VAWA to discourage what does not exist. However, the opposition continues to resist such provisions. Why? No harm, no foul, right? Or, perhaps VAWA operatives prefer a lack of prohibitions, which by their absence creates a legal atmosphere that encourages and rewards false accusers like Gibson?

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­O’Neal and her ilk think VAWA programs are free of fraud and corruption too. Yet, in February of this year, the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office reported that the head of Peace and Joy Care Center – a Carson-based non-profit organization that provides services for domestic violence victims under a contract with Los Angeles County – was arrested for allegedly ordering employees to assist in the creation of fraudulent bills totaling more than $700,000.

H.R. 4970, our favored version, allowed immigrants alleging domestic violence to apply for protections through any Immigration Service Center, thereby expanding services. Currently, all applications are processed through the Vermont Immigration Service Center. Vermont is represented by Senator Patrick Leahy. Leahy happens to be the principle sponsor of the Senate version of the failed bill H.R. 4971. Leahy’s bill advanced 34,000 unused U-Visas thereby creating an application processing gold-rush of sorts in Vermont. Even though the reauthorization is stalled, recruitment is underway to fill 150 new jobs at the Vermont Immigration Service Center. Is that just politics? I think not. There’s a distinct odor of corruption.

Representative Adams called the opposition’s behavior “shameful.” I watched a few hours of the House debate. Representative Adams was too kind. The blind allegiance and ideological fervor shown by supporters of the anti-man bill shook me to the bone. I had never experienced such hate-speech.

If it is true that men, or organizations representing men, hinder VAWA from serving all the abused, then our country is in deep trouble. There is something seriously wrong with people who support laws that marginalize an entire gender. Please don’t vote for anyone who does. They are dangerous people. Many purported victims are indeed liars, and there are advocates who are indeed crooks. Hubris like O’Neal’s is merely a regurgitation of the DV Industries’ traditionalparty line, women only and all for women. Supporters of Senator Leahy’s vision of VAWA even viciously verbally abused women who disagreed with their anti-male legislation. These pretenders may want to end violence against women, but it appears they also want to continue adopting laws that abuse men. Representative Adams was right in calling such behavior shameful. It’s also divisive and disgusting.

Harry Crouch

President NCFM

VAWA

VAWA

]]>http://ncfm.org/2012/06/news/domestic-abuse-violence/the-national-coalition-for-women-blasts-efforts-to-include-sensible-and-gender-inclusive-provisions-in-legislation-to-reauthorize-the-violence-against-women-act/feed/117852Circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons is a violation of children’s rights says Slovenia’s Human Rights Ombudsmanhttp://ncfm.org/2012/02/news/circumcision-news/circumcision-of-boys-for-non-medical-reasons-is-a-violation-of-childrens-rights-says-slovenias-human-rights-ombudsman/
http://ncfm.org/2012/02/news/circumcision-news/circumcision-of-boys-for-non-medical-reasons-is-a-violation-of-childrens-rights-says-slovenias-human-rights-ombudsman/#commentsFri, 17 Feb 2012 00:17:12 +0000http://ncfm.org/?p=6239Complainant asked the Ombudsman to assess whether circumcision of boys (Circumcision) is the interference with the rights of the child, especially if it is done only for religious reasons and not justified on health grounds. The complainant considered that the interference is harmful to the Slovenian doctors but he do not know all the negative consequences of prejudice (subconscious trauma, impotence, infection, etc..).

Before preparing the opinion, we examined available scientific literature on the issues, specifically point out the article Damian Korošec, published in the magazine Lawyer, Volume 50 (1995) entitled Trim – unincorporated banality of surgery, inquiries were sent to the General Surgery for the College of Experts, the Commission of the Republic Slovenian National Medical Ethics and Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia.

According to the health care professional colleges have survived the highest academic body in a particular area of ​​health, so we expanded the professional college of surgery applied for brief information about professional writers in this field and the available data on the annual number of such interventions on the basis of diagnosis have been made . We expected the data on the risks, complications and permanent consequences of this intervention, in particular, whether they may have in the past dealt with any of the questions related to cirkumcizijo (possibly also the question of conscientious objection). Expanded expert committee for surgery we did not answer any questions, send us the conclusion that the Circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons is not medically justified indications for professional intervention are listed in the professional urological literature.

Commission Office for Medical Ethics has sent us a long answer, which we summarize in its opinion of principle, “the ritual Circumcision of boys for religious reasons in our country due to legal and ethical reasons, is unacceptable and the doctors should not perform.” In addition to the unacceptability of Circumcision from an ethical point of view, the Commission also points out that it is unacceptable in that it has already passed the interference with the medical documentation falsely as medically indicated.

The Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia has asked for information concerning payment of Circumcision (annual number of interventions, the price of services) and how the issue of payment arranged, if medical intervention is not indicated, but is carried out only at the request of the individual or his legal representatives. Institute we have replied that no information on the annual number of interventions, the delivery price that society pays health care provider is € 34.88. When intervention is not medically indicated, service is not covered by the compulsory health insurance, so the intervention of the patient to pay or his agents.

The Ombudsman has not yet got the initiative, which would be directly working on Circumcision of the individual (specific) child. However, this possibility can not be excluded in the future, so we are on the basis of the above suggestions have decided to examine the situation with regard to some important issues of human rights and especially children’s rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges States Parties to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury and abuse, while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who care about him (article 19 CRC).

The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia in the 56th Article child special protection and care during the 35 Article as everyone is guaranteed the inviolability of physical and mental integrity. From these provisions clearly show that any intervention in the physical integrity of children are limited and justifiable only for medical reasons. If there is a medical indication, that is to protect the health of the child cirkumcizijo be made, such intervention is a legitimate and legal, and a parent has responsibility for the child development permit required or allowed. If for any reason parents would not let Indicated medical intervention, the competent authorities to determine possible dereliction of duty caring for the child and take the necessary measures provided by law.

However, if the child has medical Circumcision is indicated, but the only result of his parents’ beliefs (religious or otherwise), such intervention is no legal basis. This even is not whether the child is explicitly opposed the intervention. Intervention in the physical integrity of a child solely because of the desire of his legal representatives or guardians, therefore, constitutes an inadmissible interference in his body and is in our opinion the evidence of criminal behavior.

Patients Rights Act (Official Gazette. 15/08) in 26 stipulates that a patient who is capable of making itself, without its prior free and informed consent is not permitted to perform medical procedure or medical care, except in cases provided by law. For children, the Patients’ Rights Act provides that, generally after 15 in the ability to consent, unless the physician, according to its maturity assessment that it does not fit. Child before 15 age but under the law generally is not able to consent, with the doctor in these cases, estimated to be in this position. The Act specifically provides that a child’s opinion regarding the treatment takes into account the extent possible, if it is able to express an opinion and if you understand the significance and consequences.

The Constitution recognizes the right of parents, in accordance with their beliefs provide their children with religious and moral education. Guiding children’s religious education and moral education shall be in accordance with their age and maturity, and with his freedom of conscience and religious and other beliefs or convictions (third paragraph of Article 41 of the Constitution). Guidance on religious education, in our opinion does not include the right of parents to mere religious belief choose to intervention in the child’s body. We therefore believe that the Circumcision, for reasons other than medical, is not permitted and constitutes unlawful interference with the child’s body and thus violates his rights.

Common ground for the development of children’s health and their parents are primarily responsible, but also they must in all cases take into account the child’s interest as a guide in decision making. Also, in deciding their rights are limited by the rights of others, in this case, therefore, their children, because children’s rights are subordinated to the rights of parents. The right to religious freedom does not justify interference with the right to physical integrity of another, so we believe that the Circumcision for non-medical reasons, may only be the child’s consent, subject to the conditions provided for by law on patients’ rights, therefore, usually after 15 year of her age. (11.0-66/2010)

SEATTLE — Forty-year-old Scott Hardin says he’s glad that men may soon have a new choice when it comes to birth control. But, he adds, he would not even consider taking a male hormonal contraceptive. Hardin is like many men who are pleased to hear they may have a new option but are wary of taking any type of hormones.

“I would rather rely on a solution that doesn’t involving medicating myself and the problems women have had with hormone therapy doesn’t make me anxious to want to sign on to taking a hormone-type therapy,” says Hardin, who is single and a college administrator.

For the first time, a safe, effective and reversible hormonal male contraceptive appears to be within reach. Several formulations are expected to become commercially available within the near future. Men may soon have the options of a daily pill to be taken orally, a patch or gel to be applied to the skin, an injection given every three months or an implant placed under the skin every 12 months, according to Seattle researchers.

“It largely depends on how funding continues. The technology is there. We know how it would work,” says Dr. Andrea Coviello, who is helping to test several male contraceptives at the Population Center for Research in Reproduction at the University of Washington in Seattle… CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Also see REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS for more on the lack of male contraceptives like those above and related issues